Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Professor Bernard Williams' report was debated in your Lordships' House. It was a marvellous, clearly written report, as one would expect from his chairmanship. However, when it was subject to analysis and scrutiny in your Lordships' House, virtually nothing was left of it. In particular, there was a highly cogent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and that report sank without trace, I thought for good, until my noble friend resuscitated it at Second Reading.

As my noble friend has said, this is a complicated matter and this will probably not be the last word on it, but I do not believe that we should take the Williams report as our jumping-off point. We should certainly consider it in the light of the debate in Committee.

The Earl of Halsbury: I was told that one could not draft a Bill like this, but I have proved that it is possible. I have tried to simplify things. What sort of a world do we live in? I have here a banner headline from last week's edition of the Sunday Times:


I note what has been said and I shall reconsider this matter on Report. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Schedule [Activities relevant to the definition of obscenity]:

The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 3:


Page 3, line 35, at end insert--


    ("Satyriasis.")

The noble Earl said: I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I thought I was fairly hard-boiled in such matters, but I confess that I did not understand all the terms that my noble friend set out in the schedule. I believe that he derived them from careful study in the library of the Royal Society of Psychiatrists.

Perhaps I should have made this suggestion in relation to Clause 1. The Bill substitutes a number of particular matters for the general definition of "obscenity" in the 1959 Act. Perhaps my noble friend will consider, before the next stage, making Clause 1 and the schedule subject, without prejudice, to the definition in the 1959 Act.

Lord Wilberforce: With apologies to my noble kinsman's wish to add to the schedule, I suggest that the form in which he puts Amendment No. 3 is slightly confusing. He adds this word, which I cannot pronounce and the meaning of which I do not know, after the end of line 35. I believe that he is seeking to insert it after

7 May 1999 : Column 949

line 35, as line 36, with the others consequently renumbered. I do not believe that my noble kinsman wants the word added to the end of line 35.

The Earl of Halsbury: I have listened to everything that has been said. I shall reconsider the matter on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported to the House with amendments.

Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999

1.40 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999 be approved.

The need to implement the latest European directive on aeroplane noise has provided the impetus to brigade in a single measure the noise certification requirements of four other European Council directives which are currently implemented in three separate statutory instruments.

Noise certification is complex because of the numerous categories of aeroplanes which must be included and the number of different standards which apply. However, for all their apparent complexity the regulations are principally an exercise in consolidation. There is little in them which is new and nothing which places additional burdens on either the aviation community or the regulatory authorities.

While these regulations involve no direct increases in noise stringency, they do consolidate and unify in a single measure the standards covering the vast majority of aeroplanes currently flying in the UK. I commend these regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, air noise certification is where I entered politics. I long remember a dinner party in Kew, sometime in the 1960s, attended by two people from the Ministry who told us categorically that it would be impossible to reduce the noise made by jet engines because their power would be reduced and the aeroplanes would fall out of the sky. All I can say is that I have used that example over many years to illustrate the power of demand for quietness, or any other product of engineering, as a way of making engineers concentrate their attention on something which is required by the general public.

I am delighted to welcome this consolidation of the existing regulations. It will obviously make life easier. We will not have to peer into all sorts of different tomes.

7 May 1999 : Column 950

But one minor point puzzled me. Regulation 14 gets rid of the preceding four paragraphs. Does that mean that the various derogations contained in those four paragraphs will disappear on 1st April 2002?

Secondly, can the Minister reassure us that Regulation 24, which allows the CAA to permit exemption from Chapter 3 noise standards in the run-up to April 2002 for the purposes of fleet management, is not a back-door route to any softening of attitudes to compliance?

Finally, I am sure the Minister will be able to reassure us that pressure for a continuing decrease in noise emissions from aircraft will be maintained.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, these regulations covering aircraft noise are to be welcomed. While it is unconnected with these regulations, I wish to plant an idea among those who have an appropriate interest. The technology concerning aircraft emissions falls some 40 years or so behind vehicular emissions. Is it not time to address the problem of aircraft emissions?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we on these Benches have no objection to these regulations. As the Minister said, they are essentially a consolidation of existing regulations and, as far as I am aware, they do not introduce anything new. I am also pleased that, as far as I can see, they do not impinge on any of the difficult current issues, such as hush kits, Concorde flights to the United States and fully-laden Boeing 747-400s.

However, I am slightly concerned about Regulation 13, which gives a list of so-called developing nations whose aeroplanes are exempted. First, I am surprised that Saudi Arabia is considered to be a developing nation. I thought it was one of the richest countries in the world. Also, I am surprised to see both Libya and Iraq included in the list. It is unlikely that any of their aircraft will come to this country. I understood that if they did, they were likely to be shot down.

Apart from that, I give the regulations full support.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in relation to the comments of my noble friend Lord Simon, we have heard a great deal about greenhouse gases over the past year or two following the Kyoto Summit. My noble friend made the point, quite rightly, that there seems to be no improvement in the engineering design of exhaust emissions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, that is probably because there was no pressure upon the engineers to concentrate on that aspect. I firmly believe that if pressure is brought to bear, people will come up with solutions. The Kyoto targets have to be met by the motor industry. To some extent they are being met by the electricity generating people and it seems odd that the airline industry is exempt from the restrictions, like so many other things. It is also exempt to some extent from the ownership restrictions of airlines about which we have heard before.

The other exemption which I find odd is the exemption from any fuel tax. The airline industry gets all its fuel duty-free. I suspect that if pressure was

7 May 1999 : Column 951

brought to bear on airlines to sort out some of these problems, one would find solutions coming very quickly.

Finally, I understand that some third world countries might need to have exemptions from these regulations, but they are related to noise and they are safety regulated. Surely all aeroplanes that land in this country should have to comply with the same regulations.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, aeroplane noise standards are agreed within the International Civil Aviation Organisation and are set out in the chapters of Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention of 1944 and implemented by contracting states in their own territory. Legislation to apply the ICAO noise standards in this country has existed since 1970, but the international nature of aviation means that measures to control noise are most effective when co-ordinated across national boundaries. We have therefore supported the growth of UN legislation to apply the standards agreed in ICAO.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the issue of derogations in paragraph 14. They will disappear because after 2002 aeroplanes will have to meet the highest current standards. I can assure the noble Baroness that there will be no softening of attitudes to compliance as it is closely monitored by the CAA.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, raised the issue of Libya and Iraq. The developing nation schedule at the end of the regulations apparently includes exemptions for aeroplanes from Libya and Iraq. However, those exemptions are subject to any sanctions and embargoes which the UN may have imposed on specific states. That is explicitly stated in the notes to the schedule attached to Directive 92/14 EEC and applies to all EU member states. However, it was not copied out on the face of the regulations.

My noble friends Lord Simon and Lord Berkeley raised issues relating to pollution, and a question was also raised about fuel tax exemption. The exemption is internationally agreed through ICAO. We agree it should change, but by international agreement to avoid distortion.

The other question raised concerned air pollution. Aircraft contribute around 2 or 3 per cent of global man-made pollution. Over the past 20 years they have become twice as fuel efficient per passenger kilometre. The UK Government play a leading role in the environmental committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation which is investigating the effects of aircraft pollution and looking for ways to make them cleaner. A special report on aviation and the global atmosphere has been prepared under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is expected to be published in June.

In terms of the UK, our White Paper policy indicates that in the near future we hope to consult widely on proposals for new legislation to help airports enforce noise mitigation measures or enable local authorities to enforce noise mitigation agreements. However, where

7 May 1999 : Column 952

airport operators have adequate noise measures in place, new legislation may not be relevant. Kyoto has charged the ICAO to work on the allocation of emissions from international aviation so that they can be included in the Kyoto process. I hope that I have answered all the points raised, and I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page